Yaxue Cao, the founder and editor of ChinaChange.org, said that detentions in China are increasingly arbitrary. “Recent charges against defenders and human rights lawyers are increasingly absurd; and the use of nonlegal methods of detention are increasingly frequent. The international community and UN mechanisms should, therefore, be increasingly alarmed and respond accordingly,” said Yaxue Cao.

Cao also raised the question of security of human rights activists who cooperate with UN human rights mechanisms. “Just to come to Geneva has become very dangerous. Human rights activists are being subject to reprisals for their cooperation with international organizations in Geneva. It is unacceptable and we demand from the UN and international community more active efforts to ensure our security,” said Yaxue Cao. [Source]

A particularly notorious case of retaliation against a would-be participant in international rights monitoring was the death of Cao Shunli after her access to medical treatment was delayed during detention. Even aside from frequently reported overt torture, the health of Chinese political detainees has been a matter of growing concern in light of her fate, as well as that of imprisoned Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo, who died from liver cancer in July. In other cases, the consequences may be less dramatic, but neglect of prisoners’ health is still a serious issue, as Orozobekova goes on to note:

During the press-conference Zhang Qing, wife of the Guo Feixiong joined the discussion remotely to speak about her husband’s health conditions. Guo Feixiong has spent over a decade in detention for his human rights activities. She described the deplorable conditions her husband faced: “They locked my husband more than two years in a very small and confined space, where he hasn’t been able to move around. He hasn’t been allowed outside for exercise, or to see sunlight, and this has done huge damage to his health. It was a deliberate harm and a slow form of torture.”

Zhang told the member governments of the Human Rights Council that they could no longer ignore China’s willful mistreatment of activists in detention. “I express my gratitude to international groups and UN experts who raised the case of my husband at the UN. After international pressure he was transferred to another jail, where he recovered and his health is better now. His sister was allowed recently to visit him in the jail,” she said. [Source]

Chinese law mandates that prisoners and individuals held in detention facilities receive prompt medical care; however, the reality is often far removed from the law. Deliberately depriving prisoners of medical care is a life-threatening form of torture, and appears to be commonly used against political prisoners on China. Many of these cases follow a similar pattern, starting with a decline in health from existing conditions or new injuries emerging due to torture or ill-treatment, denied access to adequate and prompt medical care, and a refusal to approve applications for medical bail or parole. Family members worry that the government will simply let their loved ones die behind bars; the death of China’s most famous political prisoner in police custody only strengthens that fear.

Another pressing case of deprived medical treatment is that of rural women’s rights activist Su Changlan. Su was detained in 2014 after posting social media messages in support of the Occupy Hong Kong pro-democracy protests. Authorities in Guangdong’s Foshan City arrested and charged Su with “inciting subversion of state power,” accusing her of trying to “overthrow the socialist system” with her articles and comments on WeChat. Su suffers from hyperthyroidism, which can be fatal if not treated. In custody, she has suffered from complications from a lack of treatment, including heart arrhythmia, trembling hands, swollen eyes, weight loss, and incontinence. Su told her lawyers in meetings throughout 2015 and 2016 about the poor or non-existent medical care she had been receiving, as well as the poor hygiene and living conditions.

For more than two years, authorities repeatedly denied her lawyers’ applications to secure her release on medical bail. In March 2017, Su was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison. Su’s health continued to dangerously deteriorate after her conviction, and she now reportedly suffers from possible kidney failure and is having difficulty speaking. Her husband, who visited her on June 2017—the first time that officials allowed him such a visit—told journalists, “Her health is much, much worse than it was before.” Su’s family fears her life is in danger and she won’t receive better treatment until she is released in October 2017. [Source]

[… B]ased on conversations with victims, their supporters and relatives, China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group reports that at least six of the victims have been forced to take medication. They were allegedly given pills ‘prescribed’ for a variety of supposed medical conditions, but the ‘patients’ were not allowed to see their diagnoses. In some cases, the authorities never even bothered to claim that the drugs were prescribed by qualified doctors.

This has been the most deeply unsettling thing I have ever heard Chinese torture survivors describe. That the ‘medication’ had some physiological effects is unsurprising, but hardly captures the damage done. As an interlocutor explained, it made them ‘extremely exhausted’ and it made their heartbeat uneven. Others have described muscle pain and blurred vision as a result of the ‘medication.’ But physical effects were by far not the worst.

‘It made you think you were finished this time. Mentally, it was [the scariest], because you couldn’t know [what you’d been given] and so you thought, for sure they want to kill you. You won’t get out of here alive. It was only in there that I understood what torture was. Whatever we’d been imagining before got nowhere near what it was like.’

Indeed, one of the lawyers ‘released’ in January 2017 had come back from over 500 days of incommunicado detention with signs of serious mental illness earlier this year, and his friends attribute this to his being forcibly drugged. [Source]

The authorities, in order to make me confess, attempted to make me a media propaganda item, having me say that I’d relinquished my right to hire a lawyer. They used all manner of torture against me. After a year of this, I still hadn’t given in. Suddenly at the end of September 2016, I was unexpectedly and coercively transferred to the Tianjin Public Security Hospital. Of course, it wasn’t because I was so ill that I needed to be hospitalized. What they were planning was to use abusive treatment against me to ruin my body and crush my will, to put me in a high-pressure, terrifying environment, and frighten me into submission. I was kept in a bed and attached to monitoring devices 24 hours a day — including a blood pressure and electrocardiograph machine. Every 30 minutes the blood pressure cuff on my arm would automatically inflate. It woke me up throughout the night. My chest had wires all over it, and I couldn’t turn over in my sleep or get a good night’s rest. Every day they put me on a drip, drew blood, and forced-fed me drugs. But they wouldn’t give me any of the medical reports — another way of trying to inspire terror. I didn’t know why I was in hospital, or what they were treating. But I know my own body. I didn’t have any blood pressure or heart problems.

They even arranged a “Fifty-Center Patient Actor” (五毛病号演员) [i.e. a government agent pretending to be a patient] to be in the ward with me, exhorting me daily to cooperate with the government. When I couldn’t stand it any longer I cursed him out furiously; at that point his shtick was up and they transferred him out. Once I realized that the Tianjin Public Security Hospital was cooperating with the Special Task Group (专案组) assigned to my case to harm me, I began rejecting their fake treatment, which was real persecution. At that point they had no choice but to lock me up again in the Tianjin Municipal No. 2 Detention Center. When my cellmates saw the state I was in after the “treatment,” they were shocked. I was emaciated and pale to the point of frightening them. [Source]

Xu’s lawyer, Zhang Qingfang, told Reuters he had brought Xu up to speed with "events on the outside", including the death of fellow activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo. He said Xu was "upset" upon hearing the news.

Zhang said Xu, who was released from his jail on Beijing’s outskirts on Saturday morning, was in good physical condition and had few immediate plans beyond spending time with family.

[…] As international rights groups and foreign governments call for Chinese authorities to guarantee freedom for Liu Xiaobo’s widow, Liu Xia, Xu’s supporters have also expressed concern whether he will remain under close watch or effective house arrest. Some said on social media they were barred by security guards and plain-clothed officers from entering Xu’s apartment compound on Saturday.

Yesterday, scores of citizens traveled to the vicinity of Kenhua Prison in Ninghe District in Tianjin where Xu Zhiyong had been imprisoned since he was sentenced in February 2014. […]

Friends who tried to visit Xu this morning were blocked by three plainclothes security agents at the entrance of his residential compound. It’s unclear whether Dr. Xu will be placed under some kind of restriction in his movement and communications — illegal but common practices used by the Chinese government against leading dissidents.

Yesterday, activists who went to the prison to welcome Dr. Xu found that the roads around the prison were closed, allowing only inbound traffic. During the night, police raided the guest rooms of the activists. On the morning of the 15th, police stopped activists approaching the prison, telling them that Xu Zhiyong had been released already. [Source]

The most creative approach to dissent, however, was perhaps that of a young lawyer, Xu Zhiyong, who in 2013 was arrested and later sentenced to four years in prison for his role in leading the New Citizens’ Movement. This movement was based on his bold idea to take seriously the rights and duties of citizenship enshrined in Chapter II of China’s constitution, entitled “The Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens,” which lays out extensive rights—to vote, to speak, to criticize the government, to enjoy dignity of the person—and duties for all who hold Chinese nationality. […]

[…] Xu was also highly practical, developing the nearest thing China has seen to a strategy of U.S.-style impact litigation by selecting cases of egregious injustice that had broader policy implications. […]

Xu’s strategy involved using social media to draw attention to the problem, attracting print media coverage, generating petitions, convening academic conferences on the underlying issues, and then proposing a resolution too moderate for the authorities to refuse. It was a combination of legal argument and public relations. […]

Also in 2003, Xu formed the Citizens’ Alliance, also known as Gongmeng, or the Open Constitutional Initiative (OCI), the organization that would eventually morph into the New Citizens’ Movement. The members of the OCI—more a group of activists than a proper organization—sought to change China through gradual, legal mechanisms such as running for office, writing policy letters to the National People’s Congress, seeking to rescue victims from black jails, agitating for regulatory changes, and pushing for equal access to education. Xu explained the thinking behind this strategy in the preface to his memoir, writing that “the most ideal reform model for China is to develop constructive political opposition groups outside the existing political system that can negotiate with progressive forces within the system to enact a new constitution and, together, complete a transition to constitutional democracy.” [Source]

“Xu Zhiyong’s release is long overdue. His conviction was a sham and he should never have spent a single day in jail for simply exercising his right to freedom of expression,” said Patrick Poon, China Researcher at Amnesty International.

In recent years, activists have been released from prison, or on bail, only to find themselves under intense surveillance and round-the-clock monitoring by unidentified security personnel or thugs.

“The authorities must not continue to harass or intimidate Xu Zhiyong or his family, and instead let him again enjoy the freedom that was unjustly taken from him.”

[…] The crackdown against the New Citizens Movement was the first clear sign that President Xi Jinping would show zero tolerance to those who questioned the government. Four years on, it has only escalated the attacks and harassment against those legitimately exercising their human rights.

More than 65 people who were allegedly connected with the movement were targeted in the nationwide sweep in 2013. Fourteen were convicted and sentenced to jail terms ranging from one and a half years to six and a half years. [Source]

The loosely knit New Citizens’ Movement drew authorities’ ire even though they backed policies that appeared to be in line with Xi’s campaign against corruption. Several members were jailed for displaying banners, passing out pamphlets or holding meetings amid a wave of reports about the wealth of the party’s most powerful officials.

“There’s very little room for democracy advocates in China since Xi took office — too much risk and lots of political pressure,” said Teng Biao, a longtime friend of Xu’s and a co-founder of the movement. “Lots of people had hoped that Xi could be a driving figure behind changes. They underestimated Xi,” he said on Friday from the U.S.

Xu had campaigned for democracy and other political reforms for more than a decade before his detention, petitioning China’s top legislature in 2003 for greater protections for rural migrant workers. He helped several Chinese families whose children were sickened by tainted milk in 2009 file lawsuits.

After a Beijing court rejected his appeal in April 2014, Xu was defiant. “The ridiculous ruling will not stop the tide of the people’s progress,” he said, according to his lawyer. “The haze of Communist autocracy will fade away.” [Source]

I have been pointing out that over the past few years, starting from the now benign-looking crackdown on the New Citizens Movement in 2013, the Party has been carrying out a what I call “targeted elimination” of key activists, dissidents, and intellectuals across the country. In Guangdong, they imprisoned Guo Feixiong, Tang Jingling, and those pesky grassroots street demonstrators. In Wuhan, they put a few key activists in jail; the same was done in Suzhou and Shenzhen. In Xinyu, Jiangxi, they jailed Liu Ping and her small cohort. In Zhengzhou, a nascent, bustling citizen network used to gather frequently — but no more. In Beijing, Xu Zhiyong and key activists in the New Citizens Movement were sentenced, and prominent lawyers such as Pu Zhiqiang, as well as influential intellectuals, have been taken out one way or the other. The Sakharov laureate Hu Jia spent much of the year under house arrest in his Beijing home. Then in 2015, there was the consummate 709 Crackdown that targeted no fewer than 300 human rights lawyers and activists across the country. I can go on with the list, but you get the picture.

Those considered less than “leaders” have been chased around, driven out of their rentals, and subjected to all manner of harassment. Liberal commentators, journalists, and intellectuals have mostly stopped writing, because it has become too dangerous to analyze and reflect on the current conditions and the behavior of the government. Well, even if they write, their writings won’t survive anywhere inside China’s system of omnipresent censorship.

[…] What is the path forward? What’s going to happen next in the struggle for democracy? The path forward is that there is no path forward. The Party has been working systematically to block that path: The elimination of key activists has been successful, and they are either in prison or have been rendered ineffective. […] [Source]

Mr. Liu, who had been imprisoned in northeast China, was found in late May to have advanced liver cancer and was hospitalized soon after, said one of the lawyers, Shang Baojun, citing Mr. Liu’s relatives. Mr. Shang said the outlook for Mr. Liu appeared grim.

“It seems to be very serious, very serious,” he said. “If it was an early stage of cancer, then that would be easier to treat. But at this late stage, the treatment seems much more difficult.”

[…] “Liu Xiaobo is receiving treatment according to a medical plan,” the [Liaoning Prison Administrative Bureau] said. It said a team of eight cancer specialists had advised on his treatment. The English-language website of Global Times, a Chinese state-run newspaper, also reported the administration’s statement.

[…] The Chinese government will probably censor information about Mr. Liu’s illness to ensure that it does not cause wider political ripples, said Liang Xiaojun, a human rights lawyer in Beijing. No reports about Mr. Liu’s cancer and hospitalization appeared in the state-run news media, and many Chinese, especially younger people, have little or no understanding of Mr. Liu and his role in the 1989 protests. [Source]

Under Chinese law, medical parole is granted for an initial period of six months. After six months, the condition of the individual granted medical parole is assessed. The period of medical parole can be extended, or the parolee can be ordered back to prison to serve the remainder of his or her sentence.

According to regulations on handling prisoners granted medical parole issued in 1995, during the period of medical parole the parolee is supervised by local public security bureaus. It is likely that Liu Xiaobo is being supervised by armed guards.

It is not correct to say that the prisoner granted medical parole is “free,” nor is it correct to say that the prisoner has been “released.” The prisoner is still serving his/or her sentence, albeit in a location other than the prison itself. Monthly family visits are allowed. Time spent under medical parole counts against the sentence.

“In the past, prisoners granted medical parole have been allowed to go abroad for medical treatment,” noted Dui Hua executive director John Kamm. “Common in the early years of the last decade, a prisoner granted medical parole has rarely been allowed to go abroad for medical treatment in recent years. Dui Hua calls on the prison authorities to allow Liu Xiaobo and his wife to go abroad for medical treatment if they so desire.” [Source]

Beijing's release of Nobel Laureate Liu Xiabo with late stage cancer is like NK's release of Warmbier: neither wanted them to die in prison.

Liu’s wife, poet Liu Xia, has been held under strict house arrest since the Nobel Prize announcement in 2010, and her physical and emotional health have at times suffered gravely. Footage of a video call with her has circulated on social media since the news of her husband’s illness emerged:

“This is simply a political murder, this is how the Communist party deals with its enemies, a prisoner of conscience dying just outside a jail cell,” said Hu Jia, a fellow activist who has known Liu for more than a decade and previously collaborated with him. “I’ve been to prison in China. The medical care is terrible and I’m sure China’s leaders were hoping for this outcome.”

[…] Zhang Xuezhong, a legal scholar and human rights activist, said Liu had been a symbol of hope for many years.

“It’s known that Liu Xiaobo and his family have made a tremendous sacrifice for the cause of freedom and democracy for China,” said Zhang. “This is unfortunate news for him and his family, and it’s a blow to China’s democracy movement, as so many people have placed hope in him, and rightfully so.”

[…] A foreign ministry spokesman was “not aware of the situation” when asked about Liu’s case at a daily press briefing. [Source]

“The world community has largely forgotten Liu Xiaobo, ” said Jerome Cohen, director of the U.S.-Asia Law Institute at New York University. He said Mr. Liu’s fate was a sad reminder of longstanding oppression in China.

In the years since Mr. Liu was arrested, Beijing has seen its international clout grow. Chinese investment has poured into Africa, across Asia and elsewhere and Beijing has become more assertive about wielding that economic influence to further strategic interests. Criticism of its imprisonment of Mr. Liu and other dissidents has grown fainter.

“China has paid a very small price for imprisoning Liu Xiaobo,” said Steve Tsang, director of the SOAS China Institute in London. “It’s a reflection of the rise of China. We see most countries don’t want to pick a fight with the Chinese,” he said.

[…] “Things have become even worse under Xi,” said Mr. Cohen of New York University. [Source]

Liu's fate is a sad reminder of two things: oppression in China did not begin with Xi Jinping, and things have become even worse under Xi. https://t.co/NPosilO8JL

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has received the news about the release of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Liu Xiaobo with a mixture of relief and deep worry.

The Committee is delighted to learn that Liu Xiaobo is out of prison at long last. At the same time the Committee strongly regrets that it took serious illness before Chinese authorities were willing to release him from jail. Liu Xiaobo has fought a relentless struggle in favour of democracy and human rights in China and has already paid a heavy price for his involvement. He was, essentially, convicted for exercising his freedom of speech and should never have been sentenced to jail in the first place. Chinese authorities carry a heavy responsibility if Liu Xiaobo, because of his imprisonment, has been denied necessary medical treatment. The Committee hopes that he will now be released without conditions and offered the best possible treatment for his illness, whether it be in China or abroad. Finally, the Committee would like to confirm its standing invitation to Liu Xiaobo to come to Oslo and receive the Committee’s tribute. Due to his imprisonment Liu Xiaobo was unable to attend the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in 2010. His designated chair at the podium in the Oslo City Hall was left empty. [Source]

“It adds injury to insult that Liu Xiaobo, who should never have been put in prison in the first place, has been diagnosed with a grave illness.

“The Chinese authorities should immediately ensure that Liu Xiaobo receives adequate medical care, effective access to his family and that he and all others imprisoned solely for exercising their human rights are immediately and unconditionally released.

“The authorities must also stop their shameful and illegal house arrest of Liu Xiaobo’s wife, Liu Xia, and ensure that she is able to receive visitors, travel freely and reunite with Liu Xiaobo.” [Source]

"The Chinese government’s culpability for wrongfully imprisoning Liu Xiaobo is deepened by the fact that they released him only when he became gravely ill,” said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. “The government should immediately allow Liu Xiaobo and his wife, Liu Xia, to seek proper treatment wherever they wish.”

[…] Chinese authorities have in past years allowed at least two other prominent critics of the government to become gravely ill in detention and die there or in hospitals. In March 2014, Cao Shunli, an activist who had tried to participate in China’s Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council, died in a Beijing hospital after being arbitrarily detained in September 2013. Her family members had repeatedly warned that she was becoming gravely ill, but authorities only transferred her when she fell into a coma. And in July 2015, Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, a revered Tibetan lama who was serving a life sentence for “inciting separation of the state” following a trial that fell far short of international standards, died in detention after months of increasingly serious allegations that his health was deteriorating.

“The government of President Xi Jinping needs to be held to account for permitting yet another peaceful critic to fall gravely ill while unjustly detained,” Richardson said. “From those who ordered Liu’s prosecution to those who denied him adequate treatment in detention, and from those who arbitrarily detained Liu Xia on down, there are many people that need to be held accountable for their role in this cruel travesty.” [Source]

There was no indication [Charter 08] had real mass appeal, still less a political impact. But it was a sign of the times. Liu believed the space for civil society was developing. By 2008, despite the tight political grip, China’s lawyers, intellectuals and grassroots campaigners had carved out a surprising amount of room for themselves. In part through the internet, despite extensive censorship, but also through imaginative tactics and discussion, they found new ways to tackle injustices, question authorities and highlight abuses. They grew bolder.

Liu’s arrest was a sign of the times too. The security apparatus seized its opportunity. In China, people talk of killing the chicken to scare the monkeys – making an example of someone to warn others. Since Liu’s detention, the crackdown on dissent, activism and civil society more generally has mounted month by month. Beijing has expanded the security apparatus, introduced repressive new laws and tightened censorship. Rights lawyers, activists and others have been disbarred, detained and jailed. Many have made detailed allegations of torture, which the government denies.

All of this has been accompanied by ideological tightening across academia, religion, even state media and officialdom itself: a sort of sterilisation of the environment.

[…] “Where is China headed in the 21st century?” asked Charter 08. “Will it continue with ‘modernisation’ under authoritarian rule, or will it embrace universal human values, join the mainstream of civilised nations, and build a democratic system? There can be no avoiding these questions.”

A voice so free and capable of such sharp analysis should have been cherished by a developing country that, after becoming in the shortest imaginable time the second-largest economy in the world, has been trying to increase its “soft power” and improve its image among people both near and far.

Instead, Liu is considered a criminal, and he and his close family have been suffering under the darkest side of China. His wife, the poet Liu Xia, has been put under house arrest since he was awarded the Nobel prize, where she has been suffering the torments of isolation and deep depression. She suffered from a heart attack two years ago, and was hospitalized. Her brother, Liu Hui, was sentenced to eleven years in prison in 2013 for fraud, in a trial that was widely condemned for its many irregularities. At the time, activists denounced the sentencing of Liu Hui as a clear attempt at intimidating the extended family of Liu Xiaobo.

Far from being the personal sorrow of a friend taken so gravely ill after years of hardship, this is China’s sorrow, too. It has an obsession with control so strong that it is rendered incapable of celebrating its most inspiring people, and of cherishing the wealth that sparks from free minds, free thinking, and diversity. [Source]

]]>201292China Said to Continue “Massive” Organ Harvestinghttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2016/06/organ-harvesting-continues-on-a-massive-scale/
Sat, 25 Jun 2016 00:33:07 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=194852A new report by former Canadian politician David Kilgour, human rights lawyer David Matas, and journalist Ethan Gutmann claims that hospitals in China are harvesting organs on a scale that far exceeds the official estimates given by government authorities. Nathan Vanderklippe at The Globe and Mail reports:

Chinese hospitals are conducting far more organ-transplant operations than the country has officially acknowledged, according to a lengthy new report that raises troubling questions about the source of human body parts used to heal China’s elite and the foreigners who pay high prices to receive new kidneys and livers.

Although much of China’s transplant industry is shrouded in secrecy, officials have said 146 approved hospitals transplanted 7,785 organs last year.

But a team of researchers, including two prominent Canadian human-rights activists, has sifted through a huge number of hospital records, accounts from doctors, press clippings and public statements to tabulate numbers of Chinese transplant-centre beds and doctors – and from that has calculated how many transplants take place.

By their count, Chinese surgeons are transplanting between 60,000 and 100,000 organs a year, a number they say far surpasses the volume of kidneys, livers and hearts available from voluntary donors. [Source]

The authors point to publicly available statements and records released by hospitals across China claiming they carried out thousands of transplant annually, and interviews with and official biographies of individual doctors who claim to have carried out thousands of transplant operations during their careers.

“Simply by adding up a handful of the hospitals that have been profiled in this (report), it’s easy to come up with higher annual transplant volume figures than 10,000,” the authors write.

According to official statistics, there are more than 100 hospitals in China approved to carry out organ transplant operations. But the report states the authors have “verified and confirmed 712 hospitals which carry out liver and kidney transplants,” and claims the number of actual transplants could be hundreds of thousands larger than China reports. [Source]

The researchers argue that the Chinese government is sourcing organs from executed prisoners in order to meet demand from hospitals, which rely on transplants to generate revenue. […]

The report cites interviews with detained individuals that claim political prisoners are routinely given blood tests that other prisoners are not, in an effort to ensure their organs remain healthy enough to be transferred to another individual.

“In detention centres, Falun Gong practitioners are frequently given blood tests and medical examinations, while other prisoners (with the exception of Uyghurs, Tibetans and certain House Christian groups who were also targeted) receive no such treatment,” the report reads.

The research that the report is based on isn’t from entirely unbiased sources. Kilgour, Matas, and Guntmann say they relied on researchers from the Falun Gong group for some of the report’s findings. The Falun Gong is a quasi-religious organization that has continuously been critical of China’s Communist Party and has been subject to suppression. Assessing the reliability of the group’s claims of abuse has been notoriously difficult, as most of the information about it comes from either the group itself or the Chinese government—both entities with inherent biases. [Source]

David Matas and David Kilgour discussed the organ harvesting trade in China at TEDxMünchen in 2015:

Increased attention to wrongful convictions in recent years has caused Chinese judicial authorities to retry more criminal cases and exonerate greater numbers of long-serving prisoners. What these trends mask, however, are the formidable obstacles of getting a criminal case reopened in China.

Whether one looks at the case of Chen Man—released earlier this year after serving 21 years for a murder he didn’t commit—or the posthumous exoneration of Huugjilt in 2014—18 years after his execution—it is clear that it takes many years of petitioning just to get authorities to consider reopening a case. [See details on both cases via CDT.] After a petition is accepted, it can still take years to decide whether it meets the criteria for retrial, as demonstrated by the ongoing effort to secure posthumous exoneration for Nie Shubin.

Critics point out that the protracted and arbitrary manner in which these post-conviction appeals are handled is almost as damaging to the credibility of the judicial system as wrongful convictions themselves. Late last month, a group of lawyers and legal experts met in Beijing to discuss ways to address this problem, indicating that reform may be on the horizon.

[…] First is the simple fact that getting a case reopened relies to a considerable degree on getting judicial authorities to acknowledge the possibility that they made a mistake. Human nature makes this difficult enough, but recent personal accountability measures imposing “lifetime responsibility” for errors in the judicial process may make police and judicial authorities more resistant. This is why lawyer Mao Lixin, who has handled a number of wrongful conviction cases, thinks that such measures need to be calibrated to incentivize individuals and institutions to admit and remedy past mistakes. [Source]

Suggestions include the addition of clearer formal procedures to the Criminal Procedure Law, and the establishment of an independent review body, so that petitions are not handled by the same organs as the original case. Even so, Duihua warns, “individuals convicted of endangering state security and other political crimes will likely continue to find it nearly impossible to have their cases retried,” while others may be deterred by fear of reprisals.

Other proposals which attracted media coverage during this year’s Two Sessions legislative and advisory gatherings aim to prevent wrongful convictions in the first place. Some involve undermining the presumption of guilt that often exists in current practice and can encourage the forced extraction of false confessions. Others, like the independent review body mentioned above, involve better separation of roles in the justice system like those of police, prosecutors, and judges, who now reportedly act as “one family,” and of jailers and investigators, whose current overlap provides conditions conducive to prisoner abuse. Read more on these proposals and official resistance via CDT.

Chen’s is one of a growing number of overturned cases. China’s courts have long convicted nearly all suspects, but as the country’s security and legal apparatuses mature, many of those convictions have turned out to be based on trumped-up charges and forced confessions. In this year’s address to the National People’s Congress, China’s top legislative body, Supreme People’s Court President Zhou Qiang said that in 2015, China’s courts had reviewed about 1,300 cases of suspected miscarriages of justice.

In the weeks following his release, Chen became a nationally recognized character, as media scrambled to report every detail of his story. He had set the unenviable record of having served the most time — nearly 23 years — for a crime he didn’t commit.

In the murder case of Zhong Zuokan, one victim, Chen, has finally found closure. But for Zhong’s family, old scars have been ripped open.

The passing of two decades hasn’t diluted the pain for Li. “The dead body in the morgue appears in my mind every night,” she says. “I will never, ever forget that image.” Li is now 70 years old. Her hair has turned gray, and her face is covered in wrinkles. As she speaks, it’s as if the events she is talking about happened only yesterday. [Source]

A quarter of those jailed globally are in China, the world’s worst offender for the second year in a row; the 49 journalists in prison there are a record for that country. As President Xi Jinping continues his crackdown on corruption and as the country’s economic growth slows and its markets become more volatile, reporting on financial issues has taken on new sensitivity. Wang Xiaolu, a reporter for the Beijing-based business magazine Caijing, was arrested on August 25 on suspicion of “colluding with others and fabricating and spreading false information about securities and futures trading” after he reported that a regulator was examining ways for securities companies to withdraw funds from the stock market. He later appeared on state television saying that he regretted writing the story and pleading for leniency, even as it was unclear whether he had been formally charged with a crime. As CPJ has documented, televised confessions are a tactic repeatedly deployed by Chinese authorities for dealing with journalists who cover sensitive stories.

The lengths to which China is willing to go to silence its critics is demonstrated by at least three people not on CPJ’s imprisoned list: the brothers of Shohret Hoshur. The Washington D.C.-based Uighur journalist for U.S. government-funded Radio Free Asia (RFA) reports critically on China’s treatment of his ethnic minority. According to Hoshur and RFA, China, unable to arrest him, has thrown three of his brothers who still live in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region—Tudaxun, Shawket, and Rexim—into jail on anti-state charges in retaliation for Hoshur’s work. [Source]

The report, a snapshot of those imprisoned as of Dec. 1, found 199 journalists languishing in jails around the world, a modest decline from the 221 in 2014. One-quarter of them were in China.

The most significant change from a year earlier, the group said, was the increase in Egypt, now the second-worst jailer behind China. The group said the Egyptian authorities were holding 23 journalists, nearly double the 12 of a year ago, and it attributed the increase to the policies of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who “continues to use the pretext of national security to clamp down on dissent.”

In Turkey, which led the list in 2012 and 2013 but released dozens of journalists in 2014, oppressive conditions for the news media worsened this year. The number of journalists in Turkey’s jails doubled to 14, which the organization attributed to a crackdown on reporting deemed critical of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan amid two general elections, further entanglements in the Syrian civil war and the end of a cease-fire with Kurdish militants.

Other significant jailers of journalists in 2015 included Iran, with 19; Eritrea, with 17; Ethiopia, 10; Azerbaijan, 8; Syria and Saudi Arabia, with 7 each; Vietnam, 6; and Myanmar, Bangladesh and Bahrain, with 5 each. […][Source]

The worst abuses often occur in countries where the US has limited influence—China, Iran, and Eritrea. But many countries on CPJ’s imprisoned list are US allies or places where the US has significant leverage. Places like Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. Because there are strategic and commercial interests at stake in these countries, the US has been unwilling to apply the necessary pressure to get the job done.

That needs to change, and it’s in the best interest of the United States that it does. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have both defended press freedom and keep that right high on the US foreign policy agenda. Last year, to mark World Press Freedom Day, President Obama hosted persecuted journalists from Ethiopia, Vietnam, and Russia at the White House. As part of its annual #FreethePress campaign, US officials around the world highlighted selected cases. (I was a panelist at an event at the UN mission hosted by Ambassador Samantha Power.)

When the US puts pressure on, it can make a difference. […]

[…] But the US approach has been inconsistent. In the case of key US allies such as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, pressure has been muted by security considerations, as all are seen as essential to stability in the Middle East. […] [Source]

]]>189191Minitrue: Former Bo Xilai Ally Xu Ming Dies in Prisonhttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/12/minitrue-former-bo-xilai-ally-xu-ming-dies-in-prison/
Mon, 07 Dec 2015 20:51:59 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=188958The following censorship instructions, issued to the media by government authorities, have been leaked and distributed online. The name of the issuing body has been omitted to protect the source.

Regarding former Dalian Shide Group chairman Xu Ming dying of illness in prison, all websites nationwide must strictly adhere to information from central news media. Do not hype the story or independently report without permission. Pay attention to and delete online comments attacking the central leadership. (December 16, 2015) [Chinese]

Xu had heart problems and died at a penitentiary in Wuhan in central Hubei province, the Tencent website reported, quoting a former company executive.

The trial of Xu, listed by Forbes as China’s eighth-richest person in 2005, had been shrouded in secrecy. It was never made public when he was arrested, indicted and convicted. His prison term was unknown.

Xu was scheduled to be released from prison in September 2016, Phoenix television said.

Xu’s relationship with Bo became a focus a few years ago when the politician was probed for corruption.

[…] During Bo’s trial in 2013, the court said Bo was charged with receiving about 21.8 million yuan ($3.41 million) in bribes from Xu. [Source]

A multimillionaire before he turned 30, and a billionaire shortly after, Mr. Xu’s most prominent political patron was the mayor of Dalian, Bo Xilai, whose government in the 1990s gave the young businessman lucrative contracts to beautify the city. Mr. Xu’s Shide Group expanded into building materials and real estate and in 1999 bought Dalian’s championship soccer team from the city’s other powerful and politically connected businessman, Wang Jianlin, the chairman of Dalian Wanda Group.

Mr. Xu’s fortune swelled as Mr. Bo rose through the ranks of the party’s leadership. He became China’s eighth-richest person in 2005, according to Forbes, and focused many of his investments on the country’s growing insurance industry.

[…] Mr. Bo’s downfall in March 2012 was quickly followed by Mr. Xu’s own detention, under circumstances that have never been explained by the authorities. When Mr. Bo was indictedin 2013, prosecutors charged that he had received millions of dollars in payoffs from Mr. Xu, including a villaon the French Riviera. Mr. Xu was also accused of paying for extravagant trips for Mr. Bo’s son, including one to Africa.

Yet Mr. Xu maintained close ties to many prominent leaders, including rivals of Mr. Bo. In Beijing, Mr. Xu shared an office floor with the wife of former Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, and was a co-investor in several businesses with Wen family members. Close associates said he had dated Mr. Wen’s daughter, Wen Ruchun. [Source]

Since directives are sometimes communicated orally to journalists and editors, who then leak them online, the wording published here may not be exact. The date given may indicate when the directive was leaked, rather than when it was issued. CDT does its utmost to verify dates and wording, but also takes precautions to protect the source.

The official, Dr. Huang Jiefu, said his statements that prisoners were also citizens and therefore should be allowed to donate organs under the new rules had been meant “philosophically,” and he denied that the government was allowing it in practice.

[…] In the interview last week, in the foundation’s offices, Dr. Huang did not deny making the comments attributed to him, and he repeated his contention that prisoners “have a right” to donate organs.

[…] “Dr. Huang’s statements, even if he says now that he meant them only theoretically, have influenced many, many transplant professionals in China who believe that it is ethically correct for prisoners to donate,” said Dr. Huige Li, a professor at the University of Mainz, Germany, and a board member of Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting. “If prisoner organ donation is also theoretically correct, what can prevent it happening?”

In the interview, Dr. Huang said he could not rule out that prisoners’ organs were still being used illegally, but said they were no longer used in the state-run system that administers organ donation and distribution.

“In governmental systems, no,” he said. “However I cannot say there are no organs from executed prisoners.”

“They are not allowed to be used,” he added. “Not that they have stopped being used.” [Source]

Authorities expected to have more than 2,500 organ donors this year, the Beijing Youth Daily said, citing Huang Jiefu, head of the China Organ Donation Committee and a former vice health minister.

That could “technically” make possible 2,500 heart transplants and 5,000 lung transplants, he told the paper, but only just over 100 heart transplants have been carried out since January, and a similar numbers of lung transplants.

“On the one side there is a shortage, on the other side there is waste,” he was quoted as saying.

The paper blamed slow transport and poor co-ordination for the losses. [Source]

Liu’s ordeal illuminates the grisliest corners of China’s criminal justice system, and his release highlights a potential bright spot in the sweeping judicial reforms initiated by Chinese President Xi Jinping: a concerted push to redress wrongful convictions and curb the use of torture in interrogations.

[…] “I think [reforms to address wrongful convictions] are actually a positive story of legal reform, and I’m not Pollyannic about the subject in general,” says Ira Belkin, executive director of the US-Asia Law Institute. “But it does raise the question: Can you make significant positive strides in these cases while all this other negative stuff is going on?”

To this day, the “negative stuff” abounds: a fierce crackdown on human rights lawyers, humiliating televised “confessions” by those who crossed authorities, the arrest or intimidation of grassroots activists ranging from feminists to environmentalists. Academics and activists say the scope and intensity of the crackdown has effectively crippled an emerging Chinese civil society that seeks to curb government excesses and empower citizens.

Somewhere between Liu’s release and the arrest of these activists lies Xi’s vision for the rule of law with Chinese characteristics — an efficient, rules-based system for ordinary citizens accused of ordinary crimes, but one that shows zero tolerance for grassroots challenges to Chinese Communist Party power.

That’s a model that aims to smother two sparks for social unrest: blatant miscarriages of justice and activists who publicize blatant miscarriages of justice. But given the sheer size of China’s sprawling judicial and police bureaucracies, Xi’s top-down reforms face a huge challenge. Can a highly centralized system — one that quashes all grassroots participation — possibly play watchdog over dingy interrogation rooms in villages across this vast country? […] [Source]

But organs from prisoners, including those on death row, can still be used for transplants in China, with the full backing of policy makers, according to Chinese news reports, as well as doctors and medical researchers in China and abroad. “They just reclassified prisoners as citizens,” said Huige Li, a Chinese-born doctor at the University of Mainz in Germany.

The association opposes the use of organs from prisoners in any country that has the death penalty, saying there is no way of knowing if such donations are truly voluntary.

The relabeling of prisoners has enabled Chinese officials to include them in a new, nationwide “citizen donation” system that China is building to reduce its longstanding reliance on organs from prisoners. The move has been described in multiple state reports quoting Dr. Huang and other officials.

[…] Still, China deserves credit for trying to change the system by encouraging more voluntary donations outside prisons, Dr. Kloiber said. “We have to acknowledge they are willing to discuss this,” he said.

“Every time we emerge from the prison alive, it is a defeat for our opponents,” Gao said in the face-to-face interview.

Gao, who lives under near-constant guard in Shaanxi province, gave the interview earlier this year on the condition that it not be published or aired for several months, until he could finish the manuscripts of two books and send them safely outside of China for publication, which he now says he has done. He also later sent the AP his manuscripts and gave permission to quote from them.

[…] In his book he says he endured more torture, including with an electric baton to his face — a moment that he remembers as a near out-of-body experience when he heard his own voice.

“Undoubtedly, it was from me. I don’t know how to describe it,” Gao wrote. “That sound was almost like a dog howling when its tail is forcibly stepped on by its master. Sometimes it sounded like what a puppy makes when it’s hung upside by its tail.” [Source]

Dear wife, when I first heard that you were going to meet the Deputy Secretary of State in private on the 23rd, I thought it was very inappropriate. Forgive my direct speech: I strongly oppose this.

Firstly, even if it was an open meeting with the president, it’s not what we need right now—how much less a private meeting with his subordinate. Why go about it so secretly? What is there to be afraid of? Who’s the one afraid? Who doesn’t want to be seen in the light of day holding the meeting?

[…] Western politicians as a whole have a long history of getting along with evil regimes for their own selfish and greedy ends. […] Since the Clinton era, the American political class has disregarded the basic calls of humanity and muddied itself by getting so close to the sinister Communist Party. When these politicians raise their glasses together, justice, human dignity, and conscience, are all given a price tag. The Party officials who commit crimes against humanity still go about with their heads high, having long forgotten their indelible bloody crimes. The Western politicians who have become their accomplices have forsaken the conscience and sense of honor that humans should have. [Source]

As the AP reports, Gao claims to have received a divine revelation that Communist Party rule will end in 2017, and believes that contact with its Western “accomplices” in the meantime is pointless.

]]>187230WWII Anniversary Amnesty and Xi’s Personal Powerhttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/08/the-ww2-anniversary-amnesty-and-xis-personal-power/
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:46:38 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=186492To mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II next week, Chinese legislators are reportedly considering an amnesty for prisoners who fought in wars against the Japanese, Nationalists, and others since 1949; who are elderly or physically disabled; or who committed minor crimes while under the age of 18. Those who committed crimes involving violence, corruption, or national security will be ineligible, excluding many fallen officials and political prisoners.

What is remarkable about the pardon, according to one veteran American expert on the Chinese prison system, is not the number of prisoners to be released – which is likely to be small – but rather what it says about the status of Chinese President Xi Jinping.

[…] If approved, the prisoner release would be only the eighth such pardon since the founding of the People’s Republic and the first since 1975, when China was crawling its way out of the Cultural Revolution. The first, in 1959, was ordered to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the country’s founding.

[… John Kamm, executive director the Dui Hua Foundation] has proposed special pardons in China on two occasions, once ahead of 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics and a year later for the 60th anniversary of the country’s founding. In both instances, the idea of a pardon attracted support from legal experts and local media, but judicial and foreign affairs officials threw cold water on it, he said.

“In the end nothing was done because, as several officials told me, only Chairman Mao had the power to make such a decision, and no chairman since the Great Helmsman dared to issue a special pardon,” Mr. Kamm said. “Xi once again demonstrates his self-confidence.” [Source]

Qin Qianhong, a constitutional law professor at Wuhan University, told the Global Times that the act shows the Chinese government’s confidence in its governance and legal system.

“To release some felons back to society demonstrates that the country has the ability to remold them into law-abiding citizens and maintain stability,” Qin said. “It can help China set up a civilized and law-abiding image and an image that the country pays attention to humanitarianism.”

Wang Ping, a criminal law professor with the China University of Political Science and Law, said that the move is in line with the rule of law and will help promote the authority of the Constitution.

“The concept of amnesty has been written in the Constitution but has not been used for decades. The act can increase public awareness of the law and build confidence,” Wang told the Global Times.

[…] To apply special amnesty to people who have made wartime contributions could also inspire patriotism, as it shows the country’s respect for veterans, Wang said.

Qin added that the amnesty also demonstrates that China is a country which promotes pacifism. [Source]

Lawyer Mo Shaoping said Gao was taken to Beijing’s Anzhen Hospital last week and diagnosed with cardiovascular disease, heart problems and high blood pressure. He said Gao was given medication to control her condition and returned to prison.

The lawyer last week filed an application for medical parole on Gao’s behalf, which if granted would allow her to serve the rest of her sentence at home.

“At this stage, it is hard to predict whether the application will be approved or not,” Mo said. The Beijing police spokesman’s office did not immediately respond to questions about Gao. [Source]

China is obligated under international law to provide for the medical care of all persons deprived of their liberty. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the independent expert body that monitors state compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which China is a party, states in its General Comment No. 14 on the right to the highest attainable standard of health that, “States are under the obligation to respect the right to health by, inter alia, refraining from denying or limiting equal access for all persons, including prisoners or detainees … to preventive, curative and palliative health services” (para. 34). The UN Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners states that, “Prisoners shall have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation.” And the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners provides that, “The medical services of the institution shall seek to detect and shall treat any physical or mental illnesses or defects which may hamper a prisoner’s rehabilitation. All necessary medical, surgical and psychiatric services shall be provided to that end” (rule 62). Article 26 of China’s Detention Center Regulations also mandate that ill detainees be given “timely treatment” and that those who are seriously ill should be released on bail.

[…] We are especially concerned about Gao in light of the deaths in detention of Beijing-based activist Cao Shunli and the respected Tibetan monk Tenzin Delek Rinpoche. In March 2014, Beijing-based activist Cao Shunli died after detention authorities failed to give her access to proper medical care, even though her family and lawyers sought to have her released on medical parole. Officials transferred her to a hospital only after she fell into a coma. She died days later. In July 2015, Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, who was serving a life sentence on charges of “terrorism and inciting separatism” after a grossly unfair trial, died in prison after being denied adequate medical treatment. The prison authorities cremated him despite his family’s protest and in contravention of China’s own new regulation on the handling of deaths in prison, and have refused to return his remains to his family. Should Gao’s health significantly worsen because of the Chinese authorities’ failure to ensure proper medical treatment, Chinese government claims to respect human rights will be irreparably harmed.

We are similarly concerned about other people arbitrarily detained or imprisoned who are reportedly being denied adequate medical care.[1] They include human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang, who has diabetes and high blood pressure; Uyghur scholar Ilham Tohti, who has heart disease and other illnesses; and anti-corruption activist Liu Ping, who has had daily, undiagnosed diarrhea for two years while in prison. Addressing these cases would be a way to demonstrate progress during China’s review by the UN under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in November 2015. [Source]

Many expected that, according to law, Zhou’s long-awaited trial for bribery and abuse of authority would be open to the public, with only a charge of leaking state secrets examined privately. Ultimately, however, the entire proceedings took place behind closed doors. The terse announcement of Zhou’s sentence was the first indication that, without the legally required public notice, a brief trial had taken place almost three weeks earlier, on May 22. This surprised even usually knowledgeable senior judges. Presumably, Zhou Qiang , the able party leader who serves as president of the Supreme People’s Court, helped organise the trial, although it contradicted his earlier public assurances that it would be open.

[…] Although it might have been impractical because of their notoriety and would have violated the law, Xi could have used the courts to sentence both political opponents without any public announcement, as is sometimes done with lesser figures. Alternatively, he might have decided to rid himself of both enemies without any judicial process at all. That would have presented him with at least two other options based on party precedent: confine them for life in comfortable party custody without any legal pretext, the way Deng Xiaoping dealt with deposed party general secretary Zhao Ziyang following the Tiananmen massacre of June 4, 1989; or permanently eliminate them through cruel police detention, for example by denying urgently needed medical care, the way Mao Zedong dealt with deposed party general secretary Liu Shaoqi during the Cultural Revolution.

However, formally lawless options did not appeal to Xi, who has made “governance in accordance with law” and anti-corruption trials central themes of his administration’s propaganda while nevertheless practising China’s most ruthless repression in a generation. To enhance the legitimacy of his regime and to promote his continuing anti-corruption campaign, Xi had to be seen to hold a trial for Zhou, but circumstances did not permit even the controlled openness of Bo’s trial. [Source]

From the outside, Qincheng might pass for a secret spa retreat. Tucked in the misty mountainside, its red gates are flanked by low surrounding walls and towering white birch trees.

He Diankui, a former director of the prison’s supervision office who worked at Qincheng for more than 40 years, said prisoners were treated according to rank. He even recalls shark’s fin soup prepared by a chef from the five-star Beijing Hotel being served.

Qincheng’s evolution spans four main periods. Up until the 1960s, old Manchu officials, Japanese prisoners of war, and Kuomintang leaders were held there. During the 1960s and early 1970s, most prisoners were held for being “counter-revolutionaries”. The “Gang of Four” and its alleged associates were imprisoned in Qincheng from the late 1970s to the 1980s.

The last phase, which loosely spans from the 1990s until today, has seen the imprisonment of many high-net worth, corrupt officials, including former National People’s Congress vice-chairman Cheng Kejie, former vice-chairman of China Mobile Group Zhang Chunjiang, former Yunnan governor Li Jiating, former China Construction Bank chairman Zhang Enzhao, and former Guizhou party secretary Liu Fangren. [Source]

In an interview last week, Mr. Foster said he wanted the world to know about the mistreatment that ordinary Chinese endure after they are arrested by the police but before they are formally charged or tried in court. Mr. Foster, who later confessed to stealing money from an American colleague at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, said he shared a bare concrete cell with upward of 30 people. There were no beds, let alone bedding, and each cell was run by sadistic inmates, anointed by the guards, who terrorized detainees with frequent beatings.

“It was a living nightmare,” said Mr. Foster, 50, speaking from his home in South Carolina, where he is writing a book about his experience. After his conviction for theft, he was sentenced to time served and deported. “I’m amazed such a world exists, but I’m equally amazed they allowed me to witness it.”

[…] At Baiyun Detention Center, the guards handed over day-to-day control to the hardened men Mr. Foster described as “the regime,” inmates who were in charge of setting quotas for Christmas light assembly — and for enforcing their own whims through random and gratuitous brutality. Those who were slow putting together the twinkling icicles ubiquitous in American suburbia, he said, would be kicked, karate chopped and occasionally whipped with the braided strands of wires.

[…] Mr. Foster recalled inmates disappearing into solitary confinement or chained to the floor for days without food or access to the toilet. “You could hear them screaming,” he said. […] [Source]